If you're a financial freak try online forex, forex online has never been easier; experience forex trading at the leading forex broker offering forex managed accounts offering you the opportunity to trade forex online with state of the art real trading conditions.

Webmaster or site owner? Join the leading forex affiliate program and start earning from your advertising space.

John McCain should stick to the economic basics [Karl]

The latest polling data from Gallup suggests that Americans overwhelmingly prefer that the government focus on improving overall economic conditions,Ã‚Â as opposed to taking steps to redistribute wealth.Ã‚Â Moreover, a majority of those making over $30,000 tend to agree that the government is doing too much (a figure generally consistent with the 2004 presidential exit poll data).

John McCain may have shot himself in the foot with his habit of admitting he is no expert on the economy, but presidential elections turn more on setting a direction than the minutiae of economic policy.Ã‚Â McCain can point out that Barack ObamaÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s tax proposals involve tax hikes of at least $2 trillion over the next 10 years.Ã‚Â And while Obama claims he wantsÃ‚Â to redistribute wealth by taxing “the rich,” he already voted this year to hike taxesÃ‚Â on people making as little asÃ‚Â $31,850 annually.

Taking positions on the role of government regarding the economy supported by at least a majority and as high as 84% of Americans should be a no-brainer.Ã‚Â And John McCain is just the guy to do it.

MR. BROKAW: We’re back here on MEET THE PRESS from Jackson Hole, Wyoming, with NBC’s political director Chuck Todd.

Chuck, the political landscape in this part of America has been changing pretty profoundly.

MR. CHUCK TODD: It’s stunning. You know, when you go back to the 2000 election, you could go from the border of Canada to the border of Mexico, from Montana all the way through New Mexico and only travel through states governed by Republicans. Fast-forward eight years, you do that same path and it’s only states governed by Democrats. So, we’ve seen a big shift locally in elected governors out here, out West, and even in some of the state legislatures.

MR. BROKAW: And these governors are not ideologically centered, they’re really can-do governors, and a lot of them work with Republican legislatures. In fact, most of them do.

MR. TODD: It is. It’s sort of the–it’s very–they’re not ideologues, and what it is, is it’s almost as if the libertarian streak of the West, you know, the whole–the Reagan-Goldwater Republicans were, were libertarian in nature, secular, actually. They’d, they, they might have been religious but they didn’t wear it on their sleeves. And as the Republican Party locally in a lot of these states–Colorado in particular–has had a lot of sort of religious right dominating of their primaries, it’s allowed these Democrats to start targeting the sort of center right libertarians, this sort of–the freedom that not wanting to talk about religion, and they’ve been winning those voters over.

MR. BROKAW: Let’s talk about the fall and strategy in the West. Senator McCain represents Arizona; war hero, maverick. Why isn’t he getting more traction in the West at this stage of the process?

MR. TODD: He’s the perfect candidate, if you thought about it, for, for out West, because of everything you just described. But he’s getting punished on a couple of things. First of all, the West is the youngest region of, of our four major regions, and Obama appeals to this young, and these young–Colorado’s one of the five youngest states in the union. So, already–and McCain being older is appealing to older voters, so that’s, that’s one problem he’s having. The Republican brand is a mess, that’s the other thing. And, you know, we can focus simply on Hispanics. While John McCain has been proactive in trying to push for comprehensive immigration reform and, you know, really been very friendly with Hispanics, the Republican brand has been terrible. I mean, the Tom Tancredo stuff has really hurt the Republicans’ image.

MR. BROKAW: He’s a Republican congressman from Colorado with a…

MR. TODD: From Colorado. Very sort of on a crusade, on anti-immigration, and it’s really hurt the Republican image here. And that hurts McCain even though he’s got a stance that should sell well.

MR. BROKAW: The Democratic Convention will be in Denver, not by accident.

MR. TODD: No.

MR. BROKAW: Howard Dean has said, “If we win the West we’ll win the American presidency.” Is everything up to date in Denver for the Democratic convention?

MR. TODD: Not really. They’ve got a financial issue. Part of that is they had a nominee very late in the process, they’ve had donors not ready–particularly a lot of Obama donors who were not ready to give money to the convention if they thought somehow they were–their guy wasn’t going to be the nominee. But it looks like they’re going to get the money, but it–we’ll see. There’s not a lot of corporate money in Denver. We’ve got a–they’ve got economic problems there, and so suddenly they’ve had some struggles. But the convention has to go on, so they’ll figure it out.

That’s extreme really, nishi. McCain is well-positioned not to marginalize the religious right but to redefine it. This would be a huge contribution to our politics, and really is one of the biggest and best rationales for his campaign. A McCain victory would decidedly recontextualize perceptions of the influence of evangelicals in the party. Baracky and his Christian hate would only energize and radicalize the religious right. For real, if you want to advance your agenda, voting Baracky is really shortsighted.

social cons have been in the tent since 1980. and since your big issues are escr and not teaching ID is public schools, I’ll note that libertarians should be against federally-funded research and public schools. You obvs know jack about political history or libertarianism, which is why you get so little respect here.

Religious social conservatives are not cartoons. They pay taxes and buy gas and they want jobs for their kids. Whatever non-libertarian streak they may have way more often takes the form of I told you so on social policy issues than any proactive effort to legislate morality. They’re more watchdog than martinet, if you for real watch what they do. Watchdogs are important.

libertariansism as such was never a plank in any party platform. The closest it ever came was the Goldwater 1964 campaign — which was one of the biggest electoral blowouts of the 20th century, paved the way for Medicare, Medicaid, etc.

Again, you have not a clue as to what you’re writing about. It’s pathetic, really.

nishi, a McCain victory would a lot make “theocons are the new base” sound kind of silly. Baracky wants nothing more than to piss off Christians so he can have a foil for his phony move to the center is all. McCain is the real deal in this respect. Unitey.

Your issue is not the convolution of religion with government. If it was, O!’s 20 years at the crypto-Marxis Hate Church would bug you, but it doesn’t.

And if you’re thinking of replying that it doesn’t show up in his speeches, etc., ‘et me point out to you that Larry Craig never did speeches about what he was doing in airport mens’ rooms and Vitter never did speeches about his love for prostitution, either. When pols are somewhere they shouldn’t be, they don’t publicize it; when they get caught, they deny and stonewall.

The Founders didn’t want any religion enshrined in government, but they didn’t want it banned from the public square either. There’s truckloads of history on this, not that you waould be awaare of any of it. Idiot.

The Founders deliberately weakened religion.
They had just come Europe, ‘membah?
Literally centuries of religion based civil warfare.
If they could have written it out they would have.
Didn’t you read the link from the Cato institute?
damn i hope i bookmarked it.

The guy is citing the Sermon on the Mount as justifying his position on gay marriage, you delusional idiot. He’s sending out mailers showing him speaking from a church pulpit and citing Scripture, you moron. That’s just two on a very long list you’re ignoring because O! gives you the O! Nitwit.

Considering I’ve published a paper on the the subject, and edited more, from some of the nation’s top scholars in the field, I know what you’re saying — and it’s a grotesque exaggeration. Cato is not going to be the most objective source on-topic, for that matter.

feets, hunnie, that is media exposure, not votes.
and any media exposure is good inna way, cuz it gets the candidates name recognition higher.

Karl:
1. If the Founders wanted xianity to be the religion of state, why didnt they make it so?
2. By “just come from” I mean all the culture of the Founders had ever historically experienced was theocracy, oligarchy, and religious civil war.

Several years ago, Tim Pawlenty, the Minnesota governor, said the Republicans should be the party of SamÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Club, not the country club. This line is the animating spirit of Ã¢â‚¬Å“Grand New Party.Ã¢â‚¬Â Douthat and Salam argue that the Republicans rode to the majority because of support from the Reagan Democrats, and if the party has a future, it will be because it understands the dreams and tribulations of working-class Americans.

They open the book with a working-class view of recent American history. Douthat and Salam write admiringly about the New Deal. They mention RooseveltÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s economic policies, but they also emphasize the New DealÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s intense social conservatism. Self-conscious maternalists like Eleanor Roosevelt and Frances Perkins ensured that New Deal programs were biased in favor of traditional two-parent families.

Liberals write about economic inequality and conservatives about social disruption, but Douthat and Salam write about the interplay between values and economics and the way virtue and economic security can reinforce each other.

In the 1950s, divorce rates were low and jobs were plentiful, but over the next few decades that broke down. The social revolutions of the 1960s and the economic revolution of the information age have emancipated the well-educated but left the SamÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Club voters feeling insecure.

Gaps are opening between the educated and less educated. Working-class divorce rates remain high, while the mostly upper-middle-class parents of Ivy Leaguers have divorce rates of only 10 percent. Working-class kids are unlikely to complete college, affluent kids usually do.

You trying to lecture me on the history of church-state religion in the US is perhaps the silliest thing you have ever done on this blog.

Nothing you have written conflicts with comment #39. If you don’t get that, you need to do more reading at places other than CATO. I would teach you a remedial class on the subject, but you would have to pay me.

Sing along with the common people,
sing along and it might just get you through,
laugh along with the common people,
laugh along even though they’re laughing at you,
Because you think that poor is cool.

As for the history of church & state in Europe, my essay on black liberation theology expressly notes it in pointing out that BLT draws from a German pre-Enlightenment tradition, as opposed to the views of the Founders. Too bad you have your head so buried you can’t grasp it.

Gaps are opening between the educated and less educated. Working-class divorce rates remain high, while the mostly upper-middle-class parents of Ivy Leaguers have divorce rates of only 10 percent. Working-class kids are unlikely to complete college, affluent kids usually do.

Liberals have a way to address these inequalities Ã¢â‚¬â€ the creation of a Denmark-style welfare state. Conservatives have offered almost nothing. The G.O.P. has lost contact with its own working-class base. This is the intellectual vacuum that Ã¢â‚¬Å“Grand New PartyÃ¢â‚¬Â seeks to fill.

The heart of the book is the last third, where Douthat and Salam lay out a series of policy ideas to help working-class families cope with economic, health care, neighborhood and family insecurity.

That is why O! will win, even tho 84% are against redistribution.
Because the GOP has offered nothing.
The dems may be wrong, but at least they are offereing something.

nishi, you are continuing to expose your complete ignorance of this topic. Seriously. You trying to argue with me about this topic is like me trying to lecture you on genetics. That’s how stupid you sound from your ignorance. You are embarrassing yourself. Again, people who based their revolution on being endowed with inalienable rights by their Creator did not want to ban religion from the public square. And there are many historical examples of the Founders mixing religion and politics. Idiot.

Taxing capital gains for fairness is very black liberation theology approved. Also “eradicating global poverty” as the cornerstone of our foreign policy. This is religion not economics. Also compulsory national service. Not very libertarian, this Baracky.

One last comment. nishi, you have erected more strawmwn about “God” and semanticlally what a Christian nation is than there are scarecrows in Iowa. Take your clownshoes somewhere where there are morons who might buy it.

But because Rev. Wright was on the verge of retirement, and because of my strong links to the Trinity faith community, where I married my wife and where my daughters were baptized, I did not think it appropriate to leave the church.

Let me repeat what I’ve said earlier. All of the statements that have been the subject of controversy are ones that I vehemently condemn. They in no way reflect my attitudes and directly contradict my profound love for this country.

With Rev. Wright’s retirement and the ascension of my new pastor, Rev. Otis Moss, III, Michelle and I look forward to continuing a relationship with a church that has done so much good.

show me where the USA is designated a Ã¢â‚¬Å“Christian nationÃ¢â‚¬Â by the Founders.”

“The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation”.

nishi deliberately ignores (as did the Chicago Tribune in its whining about SCOTUS’s 2nd amendment ruling) that the Bill of Rights was specifically written to secure individual rights and limit government attempts to usurp those natural rights. The 1st amendment specifically secures the right of a person to be religious, to express their religion and to limit government interference with religion.

Two days after he wrote the famous words “separation between church and state” in an 1802 letter to Baptists in Connecticut, Thomas Jefferson began attending church Ã¢â‚¬â€ on the floor of the House of Representatives. He would attend the makeshift church in the national Capitol nearly every Sunday morning for the rest of his presidency. Clearly, his understanding of the connection between religion and government is not the one we endure today.

Given that I had to browbeat her into admitting she doesn’t know much about the Constitution before, you would hope that some growing-up would eventually occur. But apparently not.

the “Christian nation” thing as been discussed numerous times … “nation” refers to the people, and there is no denying that Americans as a whole, their heritage, traditions and beliefs, are overwhelmingly Christian.

I would like to see someone address how we might use current conditions and forecasts to our advantage in trading with China. Devalued dollar, higher transportation costs, and a exploding Chinese consumer class could be used to even up the current trade imbalance it seems to me.

C’mon, happy, you know there’s no ‘A game’. Unless your referring to the minors. Even then ‘pick up’ is more accurate.

How the hell did Volvo manage to produce a car as small as that C30 that still get less than 20 mpg? That’s a real engineering feat. I noticed that the same model sold in Europe has an engine option that lifts the mpg to 52. Shrewd of them to keep it off the US market. That or it won’t meet EPA standards.

Importing less oil cause weÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re drilling our own is a lot the elephant in the trade imbalance room I think.

Unless we can drill enough to impact the world supply, I really don’t see any relief there. It doesn’t seem either rational or feasible to sell oil to ourselves at below market prices just to subsidize our waste. We need to drill now I think to prepare for future emergencies, but changing our habits is the best long term solution.

It’s just every barrel we produce is a barrel we don’t have to import. Plus, jobs. Jobs are key, really. The market price is a whole different deal, but cheap, plentiful energy should be the stated policy.

Also, does science and technology are penultimately libertarian really mean what nishi says it means? I don’t get that one. I think she meant quintessentially or something.

Science and technology are quintessentially instrumental to the production of cheap plentiful energy is where that was going.

Agreed, but I have become convinced that nukes in the short term (whispers so he doesn’t set nishi off) and nanotech for the long term is the way to go for most energy needs. Petroleum is becoming too valuable to waste on trips to the grocery store.

Was AGW/Climate Change science? It doesn’t appear to have been. Is the fear generated by a handful of PhD’s babbling about the potential “danger” of nuke plants (while living on a sphere warmed by an uncontrolled nuclear reaction) “scientific” or just neoLuddite extrapolation against the horror of the false Malthusian paradigm so dearly beloved by those who can almost, but not quite, think?

The current situation wrt energy is politically generated and will have to be resolved through politics. Drilling and building nuke plants would be as much a political statement as an economic statement.

One might give some consideration to the idea that the current oil prices may result in a political shift strong enough to tamp the watermelons down for a bit.

We need to drill now I think to prepare for future emergencies, but changing our habits is the best long term solution.

I have to disagree with you there. The US is just way too geographically dispersed and climatically harsh to reduce our energy use very much (European models won’t work — Oregon is larger than the UK, Texas is larger than France).

See this graph. Note that Canada (beloved by leftoids for some reason) has a higher per capita energy consumption than the US. Australia also has a very high per capita consumption.

The countries which have a (relatively) high standard of living with (relatively) low energy consumption are generally small, densely populated countries with congenial climates. For example, France and Russia use about the same energy per capita, but France is a much better place to live. Most of that is due to density and climate. If we were to reduce our per capita energy consumption to the same level as France, I’m afraid we’d be down in Russian territory when it comes to quality of life.

High per capita energy consumption correlates with a high standard of living and high GDP better than just about any other variable.

If I were made energy dictator, here’s what I’d do:

1) Drill now, definitely.
2) Get the Alaskan natural gas pipeline on-line.
3) Start building nuclear power plants as fast as we can crank them out.
4) Give seed funding to a whole lot of small, blue-sky future energy generation and storage projects, such as Polywell fusion. Most of these won’t pan out, of course, but one might, and it’d be a lot better than continuing to pour money down the rathole that is ITER.

I have to disagree with you there. The US is just way too geographically dispersed and climatically harsh to reduce our energy use very much…

But we are also very wasteful, at least in the greater Atlanta metro area where I live. Long, solo commutes in gas hogs are the norm here, and you learn to avoid schools like the plague because of the insane lines of people who won’t put there kids on the bus. Shorter commutes, more efficient cars, more efficient travel and shopping plans, better public transportation… we could cut our energy needs dramatically and not really change our quality of life that much by just being a little more intelligent about the way we live.

Jimmy Carter’s sweater method is a no-starter from the beginning. Not because conserving is foolish but because conserving was never really what Carter/Gore/O! had/has in mind. It is an excuse to miromanage individual citizens’ lives. Government controlled thermostats, banning individual cars, taking away single family homes from the middle class and forcing them to move to inner cities.

It is Medieval feudalism, where O!, the philospher king replaces the warrior king and his barons enforcing the green code amongst his vassels.

I live in So. Cal. I commute 26 miles one way to work. There is NO public transportation that would take me to work. Most people take the opposite direction than I do. My husband’s work is within 8 miles of home, so he has the short commute. I drive a car that is getting 30/31 mpg on the freeway. No one from my institution works my hours and lives near me.

I do NOT take extra trips anywhere on a whim. If I have shopping to do, I do it on my way home so it doesn’t add more than a couple of miles to my commute.

Jerry Brown would LOVE to Kelo out all the single family homes in the state and make everyone live cheek to jowl in tiny apartments or condos.

And I am not espousing government programs. Not at all. I am just saying people are going to have to change their ways eventually I believe, and the sooner we get started the easier it will be. You don’t believe me, ask the dude who made buggy whips.

Then you aren’t the people I am talking about, Darleen. I am talking about the caravan’s of SUV/pick-ups/big cars commuting from Athens to Atlanta everyday with one person in the car. Or, as I said, the half mile lines of idling SUVs at any public school in the morning or evenings dropping off kids too spoiled to ride the bus. Not everyone in this country is that wasteful, many of us are frugal, but there is room for improvement for sure.

I don’t know. As it is right now, we’re projected as using over 21 million barrels of oil less each day than we did last year. And we used 10 million less per day in 2007 than we did in 2006. SO reducing waht we use is possible–we’re already doing it.

That doens’t mean that we should not drill more now. Use less, produce more seems like a workable plan to me to buy the time still needed to find the really big solution, that is doubtless out there, for transportation energy.

I get what you mena B Moe. My broher and I carpool. I drive the 5 miles to his home and we share a car the next 10, takeing turns. We have 2 other co-workers that live near my brohter and we’ve tried to get them involved. The each drive big pickups and ride alone. They’ll have to decide that only filling up once a month, rather than every week, is worth the minimal loss of independence in their movement.

Something haywire with your numbers. 21 mpd is total current usage. We are using slightly less this year than last yearbut It is most likely elasticity of demand rather than efficiency effecting the change.

BMoe – I agree with the general thrust of your premise with the proviso that one of the “habits” which needs to be examined quite carefully is the actual necessity of someone traveling to the job rather than working from home. Too many companies are still thinking in terms of “sight” control of productivity when other tools are available and quite reasonable in terms of cost.

I actually do understand where you are coming from. It’s just that the same rhetoric is used by Jerry Brown and ilk in their signaling their intentions in holding people responsible, even if they are doing everything they can. For them, it isn’t enough until private cars are extinct. Which also explains the kind of schziod public reaction they have to nuclear energy and fuel cell cars — they do NOT WANT CHEAP ENERGY. Period.

IN TERMS OF DOLLARS GDP PER KILOWATT-HOUR, the United States is the most efficient economy in the world — and that INCLUDES all the SUVs and one-ton dually pickups with seven-liter engines. Look up the statistics for yourselves (the Census Bureau has some numbers, the CIA Factbook others).

Part of that is because time is money. Yes, people do stupid things with cars, including taking their kids to school instead of subjecting them to random assault on the school bus. Nevertheless, traffic jams and all, private automobiles let us spend more time working and less time squeezed mindlessly into a “public transportation” tincan.

Could we improve? Definitely, and we will. But even if we make enormous improvements, they won’t be in the cut-by-half range. We are NOT gonna double our energy productivity. We might gain ten or fifteen percent, but double ain’t gonna happen — and if we cut our energy use enormously we will inevitably cut our GDP as well. Translation: lots of people out of work, and a general contraction of our economy.

And no, we can’t drill our way out of this, but that’s because drilling isn’t enough. We need badly to start drilling, and start putting other energy resources on line, because that’s the only way we’re going to convince the world-wide energy speculators that we’re serious about our energy policy. As long as our politicians continue to sing the BANANA Boat Song the price will keep going up.

Absolutely true. It’s much easier to have your block commissar community organizer work in a tight geographic area – let’s call it a prog fief. The block commissar community organizer is in charge of distributing “free” housing, medical services and food in exchange for his “constituents” wearing a light and fashonable collar. Oh, and showing up every now and then to vote themselves a bit more “free” housing, medical services and food – to be dispensed by the block commissar community organizer, of course.

Prog scum aren’t necessarily opposed to cheap energy, of course. Only to the disgusting degree of personal freedom enjoyed by those who have refused the serf’s collar to make the requisite sacrifices necessary to achieve a “just” society.

From 1991 to 2001 I lived 25 miles from my work. I was on a small lake in the sticks and loved it even though the commute was not good, especially in winter. I had a pickup in ’91 but later got a small subcompact that got over 40 mpg to save money. By 2000 I’d driven it into the ground so I got a 4 cyl. Neon with 30mpg.

In 2001 got re-married and we decided her place would do us better so we sold mine and my commute went to 18 miles, mostly expressway.

In 2006, tired of commute, we bought a place less than 3 miles from my job. It’s has more than twice the room of the old one but better insulation and mechanicals keep the energy costs roughly the same. Our total energy costs are down and I have more free time. Government didn’t do this, I/we decided ourselves what was important and what we could do without. That’s America, that’s freedom. And of course YMMV.

A quick question…what is the distance one has to live from school before being allowed on the bus?

In So. Cal, in order to cut buses to save a few bucks, anyoneless than 2.5 miles away had to walk. And this where school districts have ripped out lockers so you find 70 lb 6th graders (middle school) lugging 25 lbs of books to and from school in backpacks.

certainly, everything is a matter of tradeoffs. We are close to my husband’s work, but not mine. And I would never want to live near mine because it really is in a very crappy area (I’m glad I work behind barbed wire) and only 1/4 mile from the San Andreas fault.

A metrolink train station is only 3 miles away from my work, but that’s two bus rides PLUS the train doesn’t come this way in the morning, nor go to where I live in the evening.

For those who like numbers: 105 million Americans spend 50 minutes (round trip) commuting per day. That means roughly 5 mbd of gasoline which requires 7.5 mbd of oil out of the 21 mbd total usage.

As Ric notes – you can’t get ‘there’ (50% reduction) from ‘here’, and if you could, the 50% reduction in commute usage would amount to a net reduction of 18% in total oil consumption. I would note that the national workforce is forecast to increase at less than 1% per year for the next ten years. An achievable goal of a 15% reduction in commute would wind up as a net -5% reduction or 400 kbd.

BTW – Drilling our way out at current consumption levels would require tripling production.

I agree, I was trying to show by personal experience that not only does everyone have to make decisions/trade offs but those change all the time and in unexpected ways.

I had expected to retire on the quiet little house on a lake but love intervened and I ended up in a nicer, larger home with a railroad track across the street and a lovely woman who actually loves me back. God only knows why. I think I have a better deal now.

The only real suggestion I have cause I’m not a very suggesty person is that rental contracts should disallow all bills paid thingers, at least going forward. Not necessarily refitting things that aren’t set up for it. This just makes sense to me, like not running with scissors.

Also if they are going to subsidize hybrids it should be scalable to the length of a commute someone has. This is because there are wacky liberal douchebags that buy hybrids even though they don’t drive very much. Which is fine, but you shouldn’t subsidize misallocation I don’t think.

nishi is the <a href=”http://www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/lane9/news/18376.asp?q=U.S.%20Olympic%20Trials:%20Flash%20Michael%20Phelps%20Wins%20Barnburner%20Over%20Ryan%20Lochte,%20Both%20Under%20World%20Record”>Michael Phelps of irredeemable stupidity, it seems.

Oh. They handed me a little copy of the Constitution. Sort of pocket-sized. I will have it handy now for those everyday civil liberty emergencies, like for when I’m peaceably assembling and saying stuff.

Incidentally, for everyone’s edification, Jefferson wrote about the “wall of separation” to the Danbury Baptists for political reasons. The ‘wall” formulation actually originated with the Baptists in North America. The Baptist Church in America was (co-)founded by Roger Williams, who was also a founder of the country (and Rhode Island, fwiw). Williams was a pietist who wanted a wall to keep government out of religion, not vice versa. ‘Cause the Founders were a diverse crowd, contrary to what some at CATO might think. Thus, when Jefferson referred to the wall, he was talking about pretty much the opposite of what people attribute to that letter now to serve their agenda.

Login/Register

Advertisements

DHgate.com is the leading B2B online trading marketplace for china wholesale products, you can buy high quality china wholesale apparel, electronics, security cameras and other wholesale products on DHgate.com.